The Democrats’ Fake Excitement over Kamala Harris, the Absence of an Iran Attack, and Other Thoughts
Libertarian: Dems’ Phony Kamala ‘Joy’
Democrats masterfully convinced us “that Americans were reacting to the prospect of a Kamala Harris presidency with ‘joy,’” snarks Reason’s Matt Welch.
No doubt the convention delegates “experienced the full-body euphoria of no longer having to feign enthusiasm for an octogenarian slipping both mentally and in the polls.”
Yet on display were “grotesque hacks” such as “one of the biggest public policy villains in modern American life, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten,” who during COVID “was arguably the single greatest repellant driving families away from the ‘free’ education system.”
And “the workaday product of Democratic-led governance is the real-world policy catastrophe of places like, well, Chicago.”
“Democrats are attempting to incept” Harris’ candidacy as “a feeling of joy you didn’t even know you were experiencing. I do not begrudge anyone succumbing to that sensation. But I won’t be joining them.”
Mideast desk: Why No Iran Attack?
“Nearly a month has passed since Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in a Tehran guest house,” notes Dov Zakheim at The Hill — and “Tehran has yet to act.”
Why? Well, the Biden administration “has promised to defend Israel against an Iranian attack but has made clear that it will not support an offensive Israeli operation against Iran.”
Yet now “the guided-missile nuclear submarine USS Georgia” is in the region — “an offensive weapon,” not much help against drones.
“It is not at all clear that President Biden would actually order a strike against Iran.” But as a lame duck he faces “far fewer constraints.”
So “That possibility, in and of itself, constitutes an additional deterrent that the ayatollahs must take into account.”
Conservative: Get Fighting, Republicans
“If the Republicans lose” in November, they will have “deserved” it, declares Thomas Sowell in The Wall Street Journal.
Biden policies “have been rejected by the public in poll after poll,” so: “Why is this election even close?”
Fine: “the media are on the side of the Democrats” and “the universities have become indoctrination centers, promoting the kind of ideologies that favor the Democrats’ agenda.”
But the GOP faced similar challenges “when Ronald Reagan won two consecutive presidential elections by landslides.”
Reagan succeeded because he spoke to voters “as if they were adults who could understand an issue,” not “in political jargon or snappy quips.”
“Some Republicans today” get that, but it seems “they are not running in this year’s presidential election.”
White House watch: Who’s Running the Country?
“Ever since he was effectively forced to surrender the Democratic nomination to Vice President Kamala Harris, Biden has been missing in action,” and “it looks like this is the game plan” through Inauguration Day, observes The Dossier’s Jordan Schachtel.
“So who exactly is running the country?”
“Some reports indicate that select elements within the White House Domestic Policy Council and the National Security Council — along with prominent outside donor and institutional forces — are calling the shots,” but the media and White House “refuse to acknowledge the obvious reality that neither the president nor Kamala Harris is making policy decisions on a day to day basis.”
“It would be great to know who or what entities are commanding our troops, but we are just not getting those answers.”
From the Right: Harris’ Empty Acceptance Speech
Thursday night, Kamala “Harris was poised and self-assured, confidently and competently delivering a well-crafted speech,” notes National Review’s Jim Geraghty.
But “words that never appeared in Harris’ acceptance speech include ‘inflation,’ ‘fentanyl,’ ‘domestic,’ ‘illegal,’ ‘migrant,’ ‘unemployment,’ or ‘poverty.’”
It was “a terrific speech for a challenger running against the failed record of President Biden,” yet the “gap between Harris’ rhetoric and her policies is still a little too wide to bridge.”
To her pledge “to create jobs, grow our economy and lower the cost of everyday needs,” even “a candidate as erratic as Donald Trump can recognize the counterpunch”: She’s “the current vice president,” so why hasn’t she “done any of that for the past four years?”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
